Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract Map 20591Lot 9 Rancho Baptist Church Geotechnical Investigation
South Shore Testing & Environmental 23811 Washington Ave, Suite Cl 10,#112, Murrieta,CA 92562 E-mail: ss.testing(daol.com Phone: (951)239-3008 FAX: (951)239-3122 June 7,2012 Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church 29775 Santiago Road Temecula, California 92592 SUBJECT: LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Sanctuary Addition& Parking Lot Expansion Existing Rancho Baptist Church 29755 Santiago Road, APN 922-130-017 City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 006120LOOR(revised) Dear Pastor Dawson: In accordance with your request, we have performed a Limited Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed sanctuary addition and parking lot expansion at the existing Rancho Baptist Church in the City of Temecula, southwest Riverside County, California. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils, existing site conditions, and provide design parameters for grading and foundation design. For our investigation, we were provided with a 30-scale "Site Plan and Conceptual Grading and Paving Plan" for the subject site prepared by Inland Valley Development Consultants of Wildomar, CA, which was utilized to locate our exploratory borings and as a base map for our"Geotechnical Map", Plate 1. Based on the results of our investigation the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site development. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proposed Development It is our understanding that proposed development includes the removal of the existing landscaping and utility lines and the construction of a new addition to the existing sanctuary structure and the grading and construction of additional parking along the westerly and southwesterly portions of the site. It is anticipated that development will include slab-on- grade construction with the use of conventional footings. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R f 1 +, Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 2 1.2 Site Description The subject site is an irregular-shaped 4.16-acre (gross) parcel of land located along the south side of Santiago Road (29775) in the City of Temecula, Southwestern Riverside County, California. The site is bounded on the west-southwest by Interstate 15, on the east- southeast by large parcel residential development and a church, and on the north by a school and Santiago road. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Topographically, the subject site is located in an area of gently sloping terrain that slopes to the south-southwest with a natural gradient of 5 percent or less. The area proposed for the construction of the sanctuary addition consists of a relatively flat area that may have been previously graded and is currently used as a landscape area with lawn and several mature trees. The area for the proposed new parking lot is currently in use as a gravel parking lot. Drainage is currently sheetflow,to the south. Overall relief on the subject site is approximately 14-11., 1022 msl to 1036 msl. 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2.1 Background Research and Literature Review Pertinent published reports and geologic maps were reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of the publications and reports reviewed for this investigation are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Field Investigation Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on March 2, 2012. Three (3) exploratory borings were advanced utilizing a hand auger equipped with a 3" auger. Exploratory boring B-1 was excavated to the maximum depth explored of 5-11 below the ground surface(bgs). Information collected during our field mapping and approximate locations of our exploratory borings are shown on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field personnel prepared field logs, obtained bulk soil samples for laboratory testing and supervised excavation of the exploratory borings. Copies of our exploratory boring logs are located in Appendix B. South Shore Teeing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Topo North America 9 A �, oc,J C MPS F O c0. ---,J C PANA C PF t,opG,VALLEY DR 411 P�,a,Pv� FO 5�., O�Teme,fla ip r AD I, 6 60 ooc 00 LEVANDE PL Q04 7 0 C�Oo r S�'CA SON a,t400wo u ,IN 0 '0, 1p, Lake Vil vp:4 60, lage L SINGLE K DR 06 CALIFORNIA RD Al RANCHO 0 0 59 10 Cc D LO 'P-O. �4 SO ep. P V*,3-1 x z Jj q C GATEV"CT 11. Ea 0 > p Tern % W,�dso,C I�J p(ONO ,-GO0. u 211;771 Fl �,,,, Rd 0 C LOLETA RD r CAJON DR 01,901, 6119 Los Ranchpt s o 79 d 5� ' oqr 1NEZ RD OE POR-fOLA RD 4t NW*.Part rO RI IDG FLIVE C, CIIPEIVO 4,v cp Z 0 CANTERFIE,,)DR 0 quA 01 10 > C, CA u 0 0 z coli"ftta 1� 0 L1 Data use subject to license rm Scale 1 :25,000 G 0 DeLome Topo North AmencsTM 9 www.delorme.com 1 =�2083 3-i FIGURE 1 .GLFRAL NOTES Z IOyI'N �1 [PSIXF IRE!M/R«)«S4l(N.M MYIXN 2 BL.Pf/AKn LMUKUTi JUHIXX. ` \ \ \ /, j l � � I (I� [7\Alorrcr EnilAC rec to Ana x«c m« nlr cavMncRY M 1 \ LOT 10\ 11 f ro mHw xNMuu rxKr\a.,n««u,uaR«w:n \- \ \ / �i� d I I 1 mE IMrs o rtr lmEs uq uRv¢ns NaarP ro nKW cccnMc \• \ \ , j. �%'? D 1.1.cuxn.s xonn u«.e uuw NtlKY�r ua rwu, 1 _ ;-Z�>X r+m cars/xler w,r rnr v aw.,s sroiw xn arr a 1 S _ LQT 8 \ \ \ \ `\\\ ' - F W$i /\D,3$.�/r-`� � �� , I I CMSIRIILM,KdMH3(YNUCYrC YM IIRM•LS'. � « xKx�rxw 9.a,,xI Rn M � �— °ten 1' .��1,•I / r',nrRS per or a/srtr K\.naE auwn.un uw5nwaem \ \ \ \--•.. + r- ` ®n1CWYK'r«ro#YO M,C Er six.-ff"- Ae, FIT ®N(IXMMKr«10 MYnIF EAST[Ito KdK ML'MpMV.IS 301 i %\/ \\ Y E"E13 OM"S _ ,�, ®I<"«NA`AP°E NNW MB 2v YA4 AY()A l `,• '•� `\ I A\y`I BU / • E xWK AolNe.kYeMR£MxYRr NV RESIDENTIAL ®smuE a,L¢'uao Amw.nttr anror ru.uu Na/A1 LOT 4 ®MSrx « OAxRGA «MN RAM A«) ( O ®w5)K!!MX OMYR IPYO NDM GIIG R«YCKW 2-C' i \ / \ I\ p ; g \ C / / %' / 1 1 �MNMY'N MKxuNr SMYpK/nY MKh Rn Af PIPAa[e 1\ \ \ ®l ` /I I / / / / ; 1 \ ® PL1 aM1«ILKMs/Nl f XV A EM Me NN6Y..V FIW$6 SWWI PU ,. CNEMN sro enG \ \ \ i/I / /i - ( 11 \ ®n[+¢W Lvff w.asvtt mwW R.m rrmr srtP PCY\'vee \y L � 1 15 NrfluA l-PYS(IlT3E Rq5)MI`.PASS, \ \ QQ \ s r-j m \\\� �\\\\\\ � \\ �' � `L ` `� / Ff ,� R �T J7 ^� I 5�i �sn r �-nFo/.na,Yu✓) ', \ \ \ `\ LOT 3 6,Y«DWL \ '/\ V. \ l A iT J O --:•_;::nii:?iiz^JF,••�RI C!.KI e'tl,KWM/O ..�•::•.•::::::�` ''�:-F�—INMRMYS I.PM iYY 1/ « m`y RESIDENTIAL ir'••xr:" \ x R •-� � S� `�'✓�-�,t�1�-�='�'��'�'K R k1WW UM'UYI.1[I!0 AP OL RLAY DETAIL \ \ \ R°�4s 2 BIe ?~ �/ .`R• 1�. '—�� AREA I SOUTH SHORE TESTING&ENVIRONMENTAL WGETA/ED INFA TRAPON SWALE DETAIL A T GEOTECNNIST CHURCH PROPOSEDRANCHO ADDITION TO EXISTING SANCTUARY S CITY OF TEMECULA, �© / / \ ��-� ••u s r Ivoroao u+nwr PARKING LOT EXPANSION SANTIAGO RD. xmwrto«Sw rKYosea\ \ IR 2 %< �� \ / . ,' ` Sm / 297 75© RIVERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA \, r SU!`FE WORK ORDER: 000120100 DATE: MARCH-2012 "TE:1 OF 1 1 (yi„ngr.fbYMOD yq,rySl.GR uay NRN MM LiV fRO \ rC\ l.-, 1 \ GNHI r.S'.5 f'Pa •;r•.;.: •Y.y;.•.� n(MN^llS Por _ _ _ _._ __ _ - . \ LEGEND Hm� WCN.M M-tl [Xn \ \\ \ 1 LOT 2 yMxiK«/rFS[x(K «/Kf 45'-A S'« mPw SYD O[r \ ,A\ cRAPtBc SCALE - AREA IN \ �\ \\ 1\ O \.' � l ., `:•A��/v � UNITS �\ \ 7A D NFl !RATION SWALE DETAIL A tl L 7ATE0 /N TRAT "/ WA DETA/ /A M` \ \\ \\ ` RESIDENTIAL 1«mil NO SL,lE 97 OP -PAURA FORMATION ,WC�SYR nO SCML Tn A /`T AI/"\ 1nCl1A -MwW+ SEAL City of TemeCLft ° `NP SYMBOLS Ns Nac xA/[ BENCKAFAX N«R — - � RANCHO BAPTIST CHURCH B-7 apvR ttwrwum wAsv IMSF 5AV5 SMKt ME_Nxemms.S.M.M cK'as'..FWn,n«r we"n>5 rwxvv"rr�(M rrau.Nr s•,L.r M e<M!a/�^Yue rXrs'/n�KanIAI,/ME,a mv.�ew u.\9x lSNNO sMfiN OlsN • ,00F• , taYWO/s I1PY AEll4AYl.FI[1NU'6tMN F�a^+tr MyNy � .m9An.NwC NAA.+Y ADW,fnp nNAW Lm tY,ao• :e SITEo•AN -APPROXIMT LOATON OF XPLORATORY BORINGS ME 1WM 13 MWL 0JMXG MN ' CLflM110N: I WOd RR AN SL(WMDM) • (Y�JYs-n+ - Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 3 2.3 Laboratory Testing Program Representative bulk samples of soils encountered during,our subsurface exploration were obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering characteristics of representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture content, R-value, expansion index and corrosivity suite testing including soluble sulfate content, pH and chloride content. Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM and Caltrans test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C of this report. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Locally, the subject site is underlain at the ground surface and at shallow depths by sedimentary sandstone units of the Pleistocene-age Pauba formation (Tan & Kennedy, 2000) with minor amounts (±2-ft)of topsoil. 3.1 Pauba Formation (Man Symbol—Oa) Sedimentary bedrock units of the Pauba formation were encountered at the ground surface and shallow depths throughout the subject site. This unit extended to the maximum depth explored of 5.0-ft bgs. This unit generally consisted of yellow brown clayey sandy Silt (Unified Soil Classification — ML) that can be further described as low plastic, stiff, slightly moist, became stiff to very stiff with depth, and excavated with moderate ease. Minor amounts (+I to 2-ft) of topsoil was encountered at the ground surface and generally consisted of a dark gray brown clay sandy Silt (ML) that can be described as moist, loose with abundant roots and pinpoint pores. 3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within any of our exploratory borings, which were advanced to the maximum depth explored of 5-ft bgs (B-2). No mottling, often indicative of past high groundwater, was observed within our exploratory borings. Historic high groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is anticipated to be in excess of 50-ft bgs (RCWD, 1984). Fluctuations in the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and variations in soils moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of agriculture and/or landscaped areas on and adjacent to the site can also cause a Fluctuation of local groundwater levels and perched water conditions can develop. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 4 In addition, the depth to groundwater can Fluctuate seasonally as a result of planned groundwater management. 33 Excavation Characteristics We anticipate that the existing fill soils can be excavated with moderate ease to the proposed depths utilizing conventional equipment in proper working condition. 4.0 SEISMICITY 4.1 Regional Seismicity The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California. During its design,life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is not located within a State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting(Hart,2000)or a County of Riverside Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting (County of Riverside GIS website, 2012). No active fault traces or fault features have been identified;on the subject site (Tan & Kennedy, 2000) or were observed during our aerial photograph review. The closest known major active fault is the Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) located approximately 2,000-ft to the northeast. Other major faults include the San Jacinto fault (San Jacinto Valley segment) located approximately 35-kilometers to the northeast and the Newport-Inglewood fault zone located approximately 44-kilometers to the southwest. The Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) is characterized as a right lateral strike slip fault with a total length of approximately 43 kilometers (California Geological Survey, 2011). The State of California has assigned the Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+/- 2 mm/yr.) with a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. 4.2 2010 California Building Code(CBCI - Seismic Parameters: Based on the geologic setting and soil conditions encountered, the soils underlying the site are classified as "Site Class D, stiff soil', according to the 2010 CBC. The seismic parameters according to the 2010 CBC are summarized in the following table. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 5 2010 CBC - Seismic Parameters Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters SS= 1.94 and SI = 0.72 Site Coefficients Fa= 1.0 and F = 1.5 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake SMs = 1.938 and SMI = 1.08 (MCE) Spectral Response Parameters Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Sos= 1.29 and SDI = 0.72 The corresponding value for peak ground acceleration from the design response spectrum based on the 2010 CBC seismic parameters is 0.62g. 4.3 Photo-Lineament Review A stereographic pair of aerial photographs were examined to evaluate the local and regional geologic and geomorphic features of the property and immediate vicinity. Four sets of vertical black and white photos, dating from 1962 were examined. The photographs were obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control District with scales of 1-in=1,600-ft (1984 to 1995)and 1-inch=2,000 (1962 to 1980). Owing to,the relatively large photographic scales involved, the analysis and subsequent interpretation of detail from aerial photographs sometimes requires a degree of subjective judgment. The degree of certainty on the interpretation of details depends upon such factors as the scale and the quality of the photograph. However, an analysis of aerial photographs will reveal the general geomorphic features, site development features, possible ground disturbance, etc. A summary of the observed geomorphic structures is provided below. Topographically, the subject site is located in an area of gently sloping to low rolling terrain. No geomorphic expressions suggestive of faulting, such as linear topography, offset streams, spring lines, and/or fault scarps, were noted within the subject site during our site investigation and aerial photograph review of the subject site. A "moderate" northwest trending lineament was observed approximately 2,400-ft to the northeast. This feature is delineated by a sharp break in slope and aligned topography and coincides with the location of the Elsinore fault zone as mapped by Tan & Kennedy (2000). For the purpose of our investigation a "moderate" lineament can be described as "may have local sinuosity, is less than a few kilometers long, may be locally wider than long, is more diffuse on imagery and may coincide with apparent alignments of topographic saddles or local drainage segments". South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 6 5.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS 5.1 Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re- arrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand boils, and Flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, where groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are particularly susceptible when subject to ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion. The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean grain size (D5o) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft. Procedures outlined in two publications, 1)The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California: Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California (1997), provide for a "screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis. It is our opinion that, owing to the depth to groundwater (+50-11) underlying the subject site and the medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock units underlying the subject site, liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Based on the above information, the liquefaction potential is anticipated to be negligible. 5.2 Secondary Seismic Hazards Owing to the absence of mapped faults shallow groundwater, the relatively Flat terrain, and the medium dense to dense older alluvial soils, seismically induced ground rupture, soil settlement, landsliding, rockfall potential and seiches and tsunamis are not considered potential hazards of the site. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General Earthwork Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of this report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed during construction. South Shom Testing&Environmcnml W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 7 Prior to the commencement of construction, the area should be cleared of any vegetation, existing asphalt, concrete, leach lines, septic tank, concrete foundations, water lines, electric lines, etc., which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should arrange and attend a meeting among the grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. Earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations specified in this report. 6.2 Preparation of Existina Ground Sanctuary Addition We recommend overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building addition such that a minimum of 4 feet of fill exists below the finished pad elevation or a minimum of 2 feet of fill exists below the bottom of all footings, whichever is the greater. The overexcavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond proposed building limits or to a distance equal to the depth of removal, except adjacent to the existing structure. Removal of existing utilities and large trees may require deeper removals. Prior to placement of fill materials, the exposed soils should be scarified a minimum of 12- inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density(as determined by ASTM D-1557-09). The project soils engineer and/or geologist should verify the depth of any removals and/or excavations in the field prior to placement of fill. Fills placed within the sanctuary pad shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. At a minimum, all grading should be conduction in accordance with specifications contained in Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. Overflow Parking Area We recommend the removal of the existing gravel and upper 1-fl of the native soils within the proposed overflow parking area. Prior to placement of fill materials, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified a minimum of 12-inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D-1557-09). The project soils engineer and/or geologist should verify the depth of any removals and/or excavations in the field prior to placement of till. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 8 6.3 Fill Placement Onsite fill soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are free of large rock and organic debris. A qualified soil engineer should observe and or test any import materials to determine their feasibility for use as structural fill. Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted within the parking lot expansion to a minimum of 95% if directly underlying pavement. Within the sanctuary pad and underlying any base course, the minimum compaction requirement is 90% of the maximum laboratory, dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557-09 test method. .No particles larger than 6 inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6 inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed and used as fill material. No asphalt should be used as fill material and, if encountered, should be removed from the site. 6.4 Slone Stability& Construction Based on our review of the 30-scale Grading and Paving Plan, it is our understanding that owing to the relatively Flat to gently sloping nature of the site no cut or fill slopes are planned. 6.5 Expansion Index Testine Expansion index testing was performed on a representative onsite soil sample collected during our investigation. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicate that the expansion index for the onsite soils is a 15, which is considered Non Expansive (Expansion Index DLO - 2010 CBC, Section 1803A.5.3). Expansion testing should be performed within the sanctuary building pad at the completion of grading to confirm original findings. 6.6 Soluble Sulfate Content Based on our soluble sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type V Portland Cement with a minimum normal weight psi of 4,500, should be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicated that the percentage by weight of soluble sulfate was reported as 0.242, which equates to a severe sulfate exposure per American Concrete Institute (ACI), 318, Table 4.3.1 (2005). Soluble sulfate content testing should be conducted within the building pad at the completion of grading. Prime Testing, Inc. (PTi) of Murrieta, California performed the laboratory analysis. South Shom Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 9 6.7 Corrosion Suite Testing Corrosivity test results, which are summarized in Appendix C, indicated a saturated resistivity of 1,200 ohms/cm for the onsite soils, which indicates the onsite soils are moderately corrosive(MACE International, 1984). Results for pH and Chlorides are included in Appendix C. South Shore Testing & Environmental does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific information or evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that a competent contusion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and mitigation. Prime Testing, Inc. (PTi) of Murrieta, California performed the laboratory analysis. 6.8 Foundation System Design Based on the prior.section, it is anticipated that the foundation elements will be founded entirely in properly compacted materials. The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented for Class 4 soils indicated in Table 1806.2 of the 2010 California Building Code (CBC). All foundations should further conform to Section 1806 of the 2010 CBC. However, as a minimum, structures may bear on continuous and isolated footings. The footings shall have a minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least 12 inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story or equivalent structures, with a minimum width of 15 inches, and be placed at least 18-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for two- story or equivalent structures. Reinforcing shall be a minimum of one number 4 bar at the top and bottom of all footings. Concrete slabs in moisture sensitive areas should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of ten mil polyvinyl chloride membrane.with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier to protect it from puncture during construction. The sand layer and footing excavations should be lightly moistened prior the pouring of concrete. Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on in-place engineered fill materials (+95 percent relative compaction, only) and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 3/4-inch. Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill materials and sized for the allowable bearing, pressures are not expected to exceed one-half of the total settlement. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 10 6.9 Recommended Pavement Section The recommended design for the proposed parking lot expansion is based on an R-value test result of 14 and a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0. We recommend the following structural section: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTION: AREA R-VALUE PAVEMENT SECTION Parking Lot 14 0.33'(4.0") AC over 0.55' (6.6")Class Il AB Overflow Parking 14 0.25' (3.0") 1-Id' to 2-1/2"Gravel It is recommended that the subgrade materials be compacted to a depth ofl foot below subgrade elevation and that both the subgrade materials and the ABII be compacted to 95% relative to the maximum density of the respective materials, as determined by ASTM D1557 laboratory tests. R-Value testing should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. 6.10 Utility Trench Backftll Utility trench backftll should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion that utility trench backftll consisting of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The upper 1-11 of utility trench excavations located within pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum. The soils encountered within our exploratory trenches are generally classified as Type "C" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA (California, State of 2007) excavation standards. Unless specifically evaluated by the project engineering geologist, all temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with CAL/OSHA (California, State of, 2007) excavation standards for Type "C" soil. Based upon a soil classification of Type "C", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) for a maximum depth of 20-11. For temporary excavations deeper than 20-11 or for conditions that differ from those described for Type "C" in the CAL/OSHA excavation standards, the project geotechnical engineer should be contacted. South Shore Taring&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 11 6.11 Surface Drainage Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the supporting soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times. All site drainage should be collected and transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainages should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. Landscape.irrigation situatcd within 5-Il of the building perimeter should be enclosed in protected planters. Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tips of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. Any building pad and pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond. 6.12 Construction Monitoring Observation and testing by South Shore Testing & Environmental is necessary to verify compliance with recommendations contained in this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with those encountered. South Shore Testing& Environmental should conduct construction monitoring during any fill placement and subgrade preparation prior to placement of fill or construction materials. 7.0 LIMITATIONS Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passaged time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R Pastor Lew Dawson Rancho Baptist Church June 7, 2012 Page 12 South Shore Testing & Environmental reserves the right to change or modify completely the recommendations of this report if site conditions are found to be different than those indicated herein. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, South Shore Testing & Environmental Yject;Ge� oqlogist Fre illiam C obbs, RCE 42265 Civil sneer ires 3-31-14 �p0. Si ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES go Figure 1 - Site Location Map(2,000-scale) �� ''y Plate I - Geotechnical Map(not-to-scale) APPENDIX A- References No.42265 APPENDIX B -Exploratory Boring Logs APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results �T°re 0 cA,042, APPENDIX D- Standards of Grading Or South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R APPENDIX A References South Shore Environmental&Testing W.O.NO.0061201.0011 REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2010, "2010 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations,Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2". California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California", Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. California Geological Survey, 2006, "California Fault Parameters", California Geologic Survey website - Open-file Report 96-08. Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall; pages 637-655. Department of Water Resources Website, 2012, "Groundwater Data Section". Department of Water Resources, Dated August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin No. 91-20. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., October 16, 1991, "Preliminary Groundwater Resource Study, Murrieta Basin, Munieta, California", Project No. 1392-GEO1; Hart, E.W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CD=ROM Version). Houston, S. L., 1992, "Partial Wetting Collapse Predictions", Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, pages 302-306. Inland Valley Development Consultants, 2012, "Site Plan, Conceptual Grading and Paving Plan, Rancho Baptist Church Sanctuary Addition", Sheets I & 2 of 2, Scales: 1"=60' & 1"=30'. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997 Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. South Share Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R REFERENCES(Continued) Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. Morton, D.M., 2004, "Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California (Version 2.0)", U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the California Geologic Survey, Open-File Report 99-172, Scale: 1"=2,000'. Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48, varied scales. Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water.Resources Master Plan". Morton, D.M., and Kennedy, Michael P., 2003, "Geologic Map of the Bachelor Mountain 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California", U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 03-103, in Cooperation with the California Geologic Survey, Scaler 1"=2,000'. Morton, D.M., 2004, "Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California (Version 2.0)", U.S. Geological Survey in .Cooperation with the California Geologic Survey, Open-File Report 99-172, Scale:,l"=2,000'. Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48, varied scales. Rogers, Thomas H., 1992, "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet", California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:250,000. Tan, Siang S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 2000, "Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle San Diego and Riverside Counties, California", California Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S.G.S. THE SOILS GUYS, 2005, "Review of Existing Soils Conditions, Near the North End of the Parking Lot Turn Around at 29775 Santiago Road,Temecula, California", Dated July 6, 2005. South Shore Tcsiing&Fnvironmcntal W.O.NO.0061201.00R r AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED YEAR/SCALE FLIGHT #/FRAME# AGENCY 1962/1"=1,000' Co Flight/3-405, 3-405 Riv Co Flood Control 1974/1"=2,000' Co Flight/959,960, 1038' Riv Co Flood Control 1990/1"=1,600' Co Flight/19-20,19-21 Riv Co Flood Control 1995/1"=1,600' Co Flight/19-15,19-16 Riv Co Flood Control South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.0011 APPENDIX B Exploratory Boring Logs South Shone Taring&Envimnmemal W.O.NO.0061201.00R LOGGED BY:JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION:HAND AUGER W/3"HALLOW STEM DATE OBSERVED: 312112 AUGER ELEVATION:+1037.8 LOCATION:SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP z 0 8 p e a "s BORING NO. 1 SOIL TEST z a �z Y DESCRIPTION qn zo o u S o V TOPSOIL MAXIIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM SANDY SILT(ML):DARK GRAY BROWN,LOOSE,MOIST,NUMEROUS ROOTS MOISTURE CONTENT.EXPANSION INDEX, I PAUBA FM CORROSIVITY SUITE A SANDY SILT(ML):YELLOW BROWN.SLIGHTLY MOIST.STIFF,SANDY IN PART,BECOMING 5 DENSER WITH DEPTH TOTAL DEPTH =4.0' NO GROUNDWATER 10 is 20 2s 10 35 40 JOB NO:0061201.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE:B-1 LOGGED BY:JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION:HAND AUGER W/3"HALLOW STEM DATE OBSERVED: 3/2112 AUGER ELEVATION:+1037.8 LOCATION:SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP 3 8 6 z Is z BORING NO. 2 i SOIL TEST e >< s a DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SANDY SILT(ML):DARK GRAY BROWN,LOOSE,MOIST.NUMEROUS ROOTS ________________________________________________- -______-- PAUBA FM SANDY SILT(ML):YELLOW BROWN,SLIGHTLY MOIST,STIFF,SANDY IN PART,BECOMING 5 DENSER WITH DEPTH TOTAL DEPTH = 5.0' NO GROUNDWATER 10 IS 20 25 30 35 410 JOB NO:0061201.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE:B-2 LOGGED BY:JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION:.HAND AUGER W/3"HALLOW STEM DATE OBSERVED: 3/2112 AUGER ELEVATION:+1032 LOCATION:SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP Q >u w BORING NO. 3 SOIL TEST u H a r o d i DESCRIPTION 0 V GRAVEL-TOP 3" PAUBA FORMATION CLAYEY SILTY SAND(SC):DARK GRAYISH BROWN,CLAYEY IN R-VALUE n PART,FINE TO MEDIUM,GRAINED,BECOMING DENSER WITH DEPTH TOTAL DEPTH =3.0' s NO GROUNDWATER 10 15 I 20 25 30 35 10 JOB NO:0061201.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: B-3 _ APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R LABORATORY TESTING A. Classification Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. B. Expansion Index An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft2, in accordance with ASTM D-4829- 11. The test results are presented on Figure C-1, Table 1 and copies of our laboratory test results are presented on Figure C-2. C. Maxim um'DensitY/Optimum Moisture Content A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for a typical sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standards used were ASTM 1557-Method A. The test results are summarized on Figure C-1,Table.11 and Figure C-3. D. Corrosivity Suite Corrosivity suite testing including resistivity, soluble sulfate content, pH and chloride content were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standards used were CTM 643, CTM 417 & CTM 422. The test results are presented on Figure C-1,Table III and Figure C-4. E. R-Value An R-Value test was performed in accordance with CAL Method 301 on a representative bulk sample of the soils anticipated to underlie the proposed parking and driveway expansion areas. The test result is presented on Figure C-5. South Short Toting&Environmrntal W.O.NO.0061201.0011 TABLE EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-1 @ 0-4 ft 15 Non Expansive TABLE.II MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP ASTM D 1557 TEST LOCATION MAXIMUM,DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE (PCf) B-1 @ 0-4 ft 113.3 14.5 TABLE III CORROSIVITY SUITE TEST LOCATION SATURATED CHLORIDE SULFATE RESISTIVITY. pH CONTENT CONTENT B-1 @ 0-4 ft 1,200 7.1 ND ppm 0.242 %by wgt Figure C-1 South Shore Testing&Environmental W.O.NO.0061201 MR i EXPANSION INDEX TEST Job No. �t^C i��n ' •C,( . • . Project ta. vi e,-,L-\ C•v faJc+,.- /i cei Test Method ASTM D 4829 Tested By C Date < , Lot H j -� Checked By Depth (ft.) ' t Date Sample/Lab No. Tract INITIAL CONDITIONS INITIAL MOISTURE, W% �{ It REMOLDED WET SOIL+TARE (,QU�6r ARE(g) WET SOIL, Wt(g) `LUC� DRY SOIL, Ws(g) REMOLDED WET DENSITY 7(t = Wt(.30165) (PCF) 12 „ REMOLDED DRY DENSITY IS d d= Ws(.30165) (PCF) WEIGHT OF WATER Ww Ww=)(t -ltd (PCF) L1i �f SOLIDS VOLUME, Vs(ft 3) ") Vs=9d + 168.5 VOIDS VOLUME, Vv(R3) „ % Saturation 40-60 Vv = 1 -Vs Expansion Results DEGREE OF SATURATION S �\ S= Ww x 100/62.4 x Vv(%) ^ 5` \� V Initial Reading �Sample Description: ' l� Final Reading �, j Height Change Ex ansion Index 1 C-2 �. u a P C , ••••••• 'G'GGGGG ...... TEST NO ■E■■■■■■■��■■■ e ,EIGI , IvT7SM SM ■■■■■■w►\�� ■nw ■■■ �� ■.■.■.■u.�.C►\■■■■.■ NET WET MUGHT ■ now OON/■\I\\�■■ SOIL Obs) ■■ES ■G■■■ \�� ��■■■■ , ■e MEN �� �11■.■■/, GGGGG■■HGG\1 1.7■.■■ MEME a No so ■■■now■■■■■■1�\�■■■ ■■OMEN■■■■■■\■i\\\ a on■■■■■■■■■■■■■\1■E1\■n on a MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■■N■\1\'.tiiN ■■■ ■■u■■p■■H�i\\1f■ No ME ■■MOO■■q■■■■■■■ 1� ■■ N■■■■■n■■■■■E■ �'��' GG ■ , ■ii ■■nNGGG GE pis ■ ' ■■■■■■■■■■NNE ■■■■■LIO9 SEEM■ GGGGGGG■:G'GG"G'GG G �:►,GG••••GGG®GGGGG GGGGG"� ;■. .■�uOG■■► 7\■GGG . ..... ..GGG"=G■ ■C: G ;C• ••`�•• m EmEm on .■■■ MEM-mm No . ■ G ..GGG■■■GAG,.. ....■ IGGGGGG hill .G■�ONE G■.GG §kjL GGGGG G �...�. G�G�i■'�Ir■■�■ ME ■■■N��GGG:i■■GiGGGGGi■i�G.�i►is Prime Testing, Inc. 41765 Hawthorn Street Murrieta,CA 92562 ph(951)894-2682 • fx(951)894.2683 Work Order No.: 12C1307 Client: South Shore Testing & Environmental Project No.: 00612001.22 Project Name: Rancho Baptist Report Date: March 9, 2012 Laboratory Test(s) Results Summary The subject soil sample was processed in accordance with California Test Method CTM 643 and tested for pH/Minimum Resistivity(CTM 643), Sulfate Content(CTM 417)and Chloride Content(CTM 422). The test results follow: Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride Sample Identification pH Resistivity Content Content Content (ohm-cm) (mg/kg) (% by wgt) (ppm) Corrosion Bulk 7.5 1,200 2,420 0.242 ND 'ND=No Detection We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager Au W11 C-4 Form No. CP-1R M f M B E 4 Www.primetesting.com Rev. 11/11 added -- El I— - - I Height of sample dftisture at compaction R-Value by exudation 'R-Value by ®®®�� exudation, iExudation pressure Stability thickness ®��®® HEM R -VALUE TEST RESULTS SOUTH SHORE .- Figure: APPENDIX D Standards of Grading South Shom Taring.@.Environmental W.O.NO.0061201.00R {l1 STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present South Shore Testing& Environmental,standard recommendations for grading and earthwork. No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded in the gemcchnicat repon of the project or by written communication signed by the Soils Consultant. Evaluations perforated by the Soils Consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. 1.0 GF.NERAI 1.1 The Soils Consultant is the Owners or Developers representative on the project. for the purpose of these specifications,observations by the Soils Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer,Soils Engineer,Engineering Geologist,and others employed by and responsible to the Soils Consultant. 1.2 All clearing, site preparation,or earthwork perfimmcd on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the allowance or supervision of the Soils Consultant. 1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safely of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading,the Contractor shall remain accessible. 1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading,the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field,laboratory,and office services for confomrance.with the icommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Soils Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may pmvideanopinion as to determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Soils Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to pmvide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications,.and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Sails Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,such as questionable soil,poor moisture condition,inadequate compaction,adverse weather,etc.,are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications,the Soils Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 1,6 It is the Contructoes responsibility to provide safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment. 1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Soils Consultant attesting to the Contractors conformance with these specifications. 2.0 SITE PREPARATION 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of offsite. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consultant and concluded prior to fill placement. 2.2 Soil,alluvium,or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in open areas as dct=incd by the Soils Consultant. Any material incorpomied as a pan of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils Consultant prior to fill placement. 2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared,it shall be scarified,disced and/or bladed by the Convector until it is uniform and for fm n mts,hollows,hummocks,or other uneven feuures which may prevent unifomr compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,mixed as required,and compacted as specified. If the scarified Anne is greater than twelve inches in depth,the excess shall he removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less. Prior to placing all,the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed,tested,and approved by the Soils Consultant. 2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools,cisterns,mining shafts,tunnels,septic tanks,wells.pipe lines,or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Consultant. 2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil,colluvium or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be overex.cavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as determined by Soils Consultant. Typical details are attached. 3.0 COSIPACPED FILIS 3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances,and shall be approved by the Soils Consultant. Soils of poor gradation,expansion,or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by Soils Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material,as directed by the Soils Consultant. ,1j u • Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page 2 3.2 Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided; They are not placed or nested in concentrated pockets. • There is a sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant. 3.3 Rocks gamer than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken oR-site,or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rack disposal. (A typical derail for Rock Disposal is mached.) 3.4 Material that is spongy,subject to dewy or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. 3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading,the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material. 3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread,watered,processed,and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Soils Consultant the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70,whichever applies. If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appmpriatc reference made to the area in the gwtechnical report. 3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil,colluvium,alluvium,or creep material•into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical or in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. 3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials,unless otherwise specified in the geoicchnical report. (See detail attached.) 3.11 Subdminage-devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are attached.) 3.12 The comuactor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes,buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,or by any other procedure,which produces the required compaction approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the Soils report. 3.14 Fill•over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil,colluvium or crcep material into rock or firm materials, and the tta sition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See attached detail.) 4.0 CUI'SLOPFS 4.1 The Soils Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals exceeding five feet. 4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geou chnical report such as perched water,seepage,Icnticula or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,unfavorably inclined bedding,joints or fault planes encountered during grading,these conditions shall be analyzed by the Soils Consultant and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems: (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are attached.) 4.3 Cut slopes that face in the sane direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-emlible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. 4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geatechnical report no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. 4.5 Drainage tcraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling govcmmental agencies,or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. . Sr1 r11 Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page 3 5.0 TRENCII BACKFILILS 5.1 Trench excavation shall be inspected prior to structure placement for competent bottom. 5.2 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backhlled under the supervision of the Soils Consultant. 5.3 After the utility pipe has been laid,the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at [cast one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand. 5.4 The on-site materials,or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant,shall be watered and mixed,as necessary,prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. 5.5 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density,as determined by the ASTM DI 557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. 5.6 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consultant during backfilling to sce that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consultant to enable sampling and testing. . 6.0 GRADING CONTROL 6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant during the progress of grading. 6.2 In general,density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This.criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In my event.an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Density tests should also be made on the native surface material to receive fill,as required by the Soils Consultant. 6.4 All clean-out, processed ground to received fill, key excavations, subdrains,and rock disposals should be'inspected and approved by the Soils Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Convectors responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant when such areas will be ready for inspection, 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Erosion control measures, "inn necessary,shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. 7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Consultant,no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for Wings foundations,large t=wells,retaining walls,or other featuics shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Consultant. 7.3 Can; shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swedes;or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. SIDE HILL CUT PAD DETAIL NATURAL GROUND '..-� i OVEREXCAVATE FINISHED CUT PAD i AND RECOMPACT _____--_ (REPLACEMENT FILL) OVERBURDEN __ I (MIN. == Pad overexcavation and recompaction OR UNSUITABLE shall be performed if determined to MATERIAL =_ --� be necesscry by the geotechnical =_ LBENCHING consultant. -- —' UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR —� MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE ------ =COMPACTED SLOPE —___=_--_ — _____-- FILL------ FACE --_____ -------- —___ __� —— _ - _ — -- ------- --------------_-------_ _ _ =_---_—___--__ — _—— _—_————t__— —==_ _—= t_--_________=4' MIN. tr:= 15' MIN. =_ _— __— —__--=___= _— —_------- =____ __------_--- =__— ____=___ _�_ --- -----__� _ _ — ----- -- ��- — OVERSIZE--- WINDROW! GRANULAR SOIL To fill voids, — densified by flooding •`_•. '-• PROFILE ALONG WINDROW TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT NATURAL GROUND i 5' =COMPACTED =F1_L -—_--�E•p.lP =` 36" MIN. - _- _ --_ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT OVE --^^"----— UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT NATURAL GROUND i REMOVE —�� UNSUITABLE 5' MATERIAL '' MIN•. —______--_=v 1�= --- ___= 36"MIN. L�CT�_E COMP =_— OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Deeper overexcavotion and recompaction shall be performed if determined -o be necesscry by the geotechnicol consultant. OUTLET PIPES --- --r FILL BLANK 4" ONonperforated Pipe, __------ 30" MIN. 100' Max. O.C. Horizontally, -___-__ BACK CUT 30' Max. O.C. Vertically ---_--__= I:I OR FLATTE -----_— BENCHING _=- -- --- - SUBDRAIN --------__- SEE ALTERNATES A 8 -------- ----—_— FILTER MATERIAL --------- ---- — K E Y _-_ - _ T-CONNECTION DEPTH 20 =__ s� MIN.� jr ___ -r------------ ---------- PERFORATED_ _ -,z —--_—_—_—f"ro.•M In —_ ---_— OUTLET PIAE �— PIPE 4' MIN. 2' MIN. --- KEY WIDTH—� 4"BMIN. •• EOUIPI+'ENT SIL-GENERALLY IS FEcT ALTERNATE A B'MIN.OVEP.LAP TEMPORARY F 'POSITIVE SEAL ILL LEVEL SHOULD BE III"MIN. — -- -- PROVIDED ' GRAVEL OR —_ •-- RECOMPACTED Flll AT THE JOINT APPROVED Uv ft 5%MIN. �• a' EOUNALENT 6`rMIN. SELECT BEDDING —+ BACKFILL OUTLET i "OMI.N. NONPERFORATED PIPE MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT DETAIL A-A' ALTERNATE B NOTES : FILTER MATERIAL* • Fill blanket, back cut, key width and Filter material shall be key depth are subject to field change, Class 2 permeable material per report/plans. per State of California • Key heel Subdrain, blanket drain, or Standard Specifications, vertical drain may be required at the or approved alternate. discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Class 2 grading as follows: • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by I" 100 the geotechnical consultant, shall be 3/411 90-100 nonperforated pipe. 3/8" 40-100 • SUBORAINTYPE;- Subdrain t No. 4 25-40 be. AS -D type shall No. 8 18-33 S%.SDR 23.5 br ASTM-M527, No. 30 5-I5 Sdietfule 4011xxyloNtrBe Butedlene Styrene (ABS)[ or:ASTJWr � D3Q34:SDR 2U pi ASTM No. 200 0-3 W_ . ._ D7785i Schedule 40 Polyvinyl CNorlde Plastic (PVC) Dine or epprovec! equivalent. r X DtlYUr1IIYU Ut IHILJ FILL SLOPE -COMPACTED =__----FILL —=_---- --------------- _. ----------------- -----------------ter--- -------- -^�-----y ------- _ _ ^- -----...� -------- -�"'- --- ------ —�•--- ----------- ___ __ �---- PROJECTED PLANE ---- - —i''—=_-- I to I maximum from toe =____=y—_ -- -- of slope to approved ground =—___ � >>___ —_-- — REMOVE �_ — = UNSUITABLE _ > — — ___— MATERIAL NATURAL GROUND -- —_ �4 MIN. - - ----- BENCH BENCH HEIGHT =2 o MIN.-== (typical) VARIES 2' MIN. 15' MIN. KEY kOWEST BENCH DEPTH (KEY) COMPACTED =_ FILL OVER CUT SLOPE F"` ==-r --- mac_--- -- �----- REMOVE. NATURAL a T=a UNSUITABLE ---—_—�`--- GROUND -- ----- MATERIAL ====r— 4' MIN. BENCH  __ �BENC HEIGHT =_.AMIN.= (typical) VARIES F+-15' MIN. I LOWEST BENCH i CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement NOTES: LOWEST BENCH • Depth and width subject to field change based on consultant's inspection. SUSDRAINAGE:. Ecrl: G'- ir1; may be required of the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. w NATURAL GROUND _ REMOVE - __------=------------=-1=- UNSUITABLE �_____-=---------—______- _ MATERIAL FILL BENCHING —mac_ -- =_______--- __-_ -_______— - SUBDRAIN TRENCH -- SEE ALTERNATES A8B SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With ALTERNATE A: Filter Material FILTER MATERIAL: FILTER MATERIAL Filter material shall be 3 Class 2 permeable material 9 ft. /ft. per State of California Standard Specifications, COVER or approved alternate. 6„ MIN. / Class 2 gradirg as follows: • ✓ SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING -� BEDDING 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 Alternate A-1 4" MIN.. Alternate A-2 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 PERFORATED PIPE No. 50 0 7 6" 0 MIN. No. 200 0-3 SUBDRAIN 1 1 /2" Gravel Wrapped ALTERNATES: in Filter Fabric NOTE: 8"MIN. OVERLAP In addition to the wrapped �1 L� gravel, outlet portion of the ! I I subdrain should be equipped with a minimum of 10 feet o° coo MIRAFI 140 FILTER o °o °o long perforated pipe con- FABRIC OR ° ' ° nected to a nonperforated pipe ° APPROVED o ° ° having a minimum of 5 feet in Alternate B-1 EOUIVALENT length inside the wrapped gravel. I'h" MIN. GRAVEL OR Alternate 13-2 APPROVED EOUIVALENT 9 ft. 3/ft. • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe. • SUBDRAIN TYPE - Slbdraln type shall be ASTM D275% SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrlle Butadlene Styrene (ASS) or ASTM D3034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1785, Schedule 40 Polyvinal Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved 'equivalant.